PITTSBURGH – Pine-Richland School District and three of its officials deny that they defamed its now former high school football head coach with false claims that he condoned hazing and bullying in the school’s football program.
Eric Kasperowicz first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 10 versus Pine-Richland School District of Gibsonia, plus Brian R. Miller, Peter Lyons and Thomas Salopek, all also of Allegheny County.
“Plaintiff was employed by defendant District as head football coach from in or about February of 2013 until in or about April of 2021. On or about April 14, 2021, defendant District informed the plaintiff that his employment contract would not be renewed. Thereafter, defendant District’s representatives, including the named individual defendants, made false and defamatory statements to the public about the plaintiff, including, but not limited to, that the plaintiff was aware of, condoned and/or perpetuated ‘hazing,’ ‘intimidation’ and/or ‘bullying’ within the football program under his leadership as head coach,” the suit said.
“These statements were, and are, patently false. Plaintiff was never aware of, nor did he ever condone and/or perpetuate ‘hazing,’ ‘intimidation’ and/or ‘bullying’ within the football program. Furthermore, any failure to report such conduct could impose criminal liability on the plaintiff as a mandated reporter.”
The suit then went on to discuss subsequent incidents, which the plaintiff labeled as defamatory:
• On April 16, 2021, defendant Salopek, in his capacity as assistant principal for defendant District’s high school, told at least three students that defendant District ‘has information that would ruin the plaintiff’s reputation.’ Defendant Salopek’s statement was, and is, patently false, defamatory to the plaintiff’s character and placed the plaintiff in a false light to members of his community. Defendant Salopek knew, or should have known, that his statement was false and defamatory;
• On April 20, 2021, during a press conference held by defendant District which was broadcast on several local media outlets, defendant Lyons alleged that the plaintiff was aware of and/or condoned ‘hazing,’ ‘intimidation,’ ‘bullying’ and ‘rites of passage’ within the District’s football program under his leadership. Defendant Lyons further alleged that the plaintiff failed to report such conduct. These statements were, and are, patently false. Plaintiff was never aware of, nor did he ever condone ‘hazing,’ ‘intimidation,’ ‘bullying’ and/or ‘rites of passage’ within the football program. Defendant Lyons also stated in the press conference that “neither the administration nor any member of the nine-member school board could recommend extending a supplemental contract to [the plaintiff] for the 2021-2022 football season.” Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that this statement was, and is, false. Defendant Lyons knew, or should have known, that his statements were false and defamatory;
• On May 7, 2021, defendant Miller, in his capacity as superintendent of defendant District, was interviewed by a local media outlet. During that interview, defendant Miller stated that there were a “series of events that have been orchestrated by [the plaintiff] and others that put students in the middle.” Defendant Miller also claimed that the plaintiff was aware of incidents of ‘intimidation,’ ‘humiliation,’ ‘fights’ and ‘rites of passage’ within the football program under his leadership and that the plaintiff failed to report this conduct. Additionally, during that same interview, defendant Miller falsely alleged that the decision not to renew the plaintiff’s contract was unanimous. Plaintiff believes, and therefore avers, that these statements were, and are, patently false;
• In a letter to the families of defendant District’s students dated May 7, 2021, defendant Miller, in his capacity as superintendent for defendant District, alleged that the plaintiff failed to report a ‘culture of hazing and emotional and physical bullying and intimidation that arose in and around the football program, particularly in the locker room, for years’ including ‘acts of bullying, physical and emotional intimation, humiliation and rites of passage. Defendant Miller’s statements, as more fully described hereinbefore above, were patently false, defamatory to the plaintiff’s character and placed the plaintiff in a false light to members of his community.
UPDATE
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 18, labeling Kasperowicz’s lawsuit as “an ineffective attempt to recast a common law defamation claim (barred by state law as against the School District and its officials) as a constitutional violation.”
“Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any allegations of fact that the allegedly false and defamatory statements were made in connection with the decision not to reappoint him as head varsity football coach. Instead, the complaint states that allegedly false and defamatory statements were made subsequent to the School District’s decision,” the answer said.
“Specifically, plaintiff’s complaint states that he was informed on April 14, 2021, that his one-year supplemental contract would not be renewed. Plaintiff’s complaint further states that (1) on April 16, 2021, defendant Salopek made a defamatory statement to members of the football team, (2) on April 20, 2021, Board President, Peter Lyons, made a defamatory statement to the media, and (3) on May 7, Superintendent, Dr. Brian Miller, made defamatory statements in a television interview and in a letter sent to families.”
According to the defendants, because the plaintiff complains of “supposedly defamatory statements made after his non-renewal, the complaint merely alleges a damage to reputation alone which is not a constitutionally protected interest.”
For counts of violating Section 1983, the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking damages against defendant District in the amount proven at trial, compensatory special damages, costs of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees as permitted by law, pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law, such other relief, including injunctive and/or declaratory relief as this Court may deem proper, and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Joel S. Sansone, Elizabeth Tuttle and Massimo A. Terzigni of the Law Offices of Joel Sansone, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants are represented by Matthew M. Hoffman and Christopher L. Voltz of Tucker Arensberg and Jaime N. Doherty and Matthew Fergus of Goehring Rutter & Boehm, all also in Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-01097
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com